Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Imagine I gave you a pill that made you feel morally obligated to give me money… Kinda random but hear me out. After the pill wore off, what would you think of your moral conviction to give me money? Would you regret it? Question it? Probably both.
That’s what moral conviction is if we’re simply evolved creatures. Why? How is that so?
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved
Naturalistic evolution teaches that our sense of morality evolved. That is, our “moral genes” just happened to make us better suited for survival, and thus those with a moral characteristic passed on their “moral genes.” And so, we have morality. But, so the thought goes, just as the Neanderthals died out, morality could have died out. Or certainly, a different form of morality could have won out.
In fact, Charles Darwin says in The Descent of Man that if things had gone differently for humans they could have evolved to be like bees, where “females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters.” The atheist Michael Ruse in his book, Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy, says, “Morality is a collective illusion foisted upon us by our genes.”
So, if we’re simply evolved from monkeys, morality is the equivalent of taking a pill that makes us think certain moral convictions are right. But the reality would be different. We, based on this view, only have those convictions—whatever they are: treat people nice, don’t murder and maim, etc.—because we happed to evolve that way (“took the pill”).
Of course, just because the way that you arrived at a conclusion was wrong, does not mean that your conclusion was wrong. In a test where the answer is A, B, C, or D, I could just choose “C” because it’s my favorite letter. I may be correct in my answer, but I certainly don’t have a solid reason for believing in the validity of my answer. In fact, probability would say my answer is likely wrong.
Another problem with wholesale naturalistic evolution is if we believe it explains everything then it in some ways explains nothing. Gasp. Yeah, that’s not a good thing.
If evolution explains morality, then I’m moral because of evolution which at least in some ways undercuts morality. Some people even say that religious people, like people that believe in Jesus, are religious because they evolved that way. Believing in a higher power brought some type of group identity which led tribes of our ancestors to be more likely to protect each other and thus survive and pass on their genes. And so, religion is the result of random mutational chance.
In fact, you could argue all of our thinking processes are the result of evolution. We’re just matter in motion. We’re all just responding to random whims. From belief in morality to belief in evolution, we’re just evolved to think this way… We can’t do anything about it. It’s programmed into us. It’s the pill we were given…
But if all this is a pill we’re given—what we’ve randomly evolved to think—what should we think?… Isn’t all our thinking just built into us through evolutionary processes?…
Alternatively, Christians believe that humans are created with an innate moral sense.
So, it seems morality is either a fiction with no basis in reality or God created us and explains reality—explains why we have an innate sense that we should treat people nice and not murder and maim.
There are big implications for either view. What is your view? And why?
Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?
Do you have to have a certain view about creation to be a Christian?
Christians believe that when understood correctly there will ultimately be harmony between God’s word the Bible and His world because He is the author of both.[1] Christians don’t believe that there is a contradiction between Christianity and the way creation was carried out. Although, various Christians believe various things regarding evolution and the age of the earth.
Also, it is important that we remember that evolution does not entail the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not offer a reason for the existence of space, time, or matter. In biology, evolution is an explanation of how and why various species have the characteristics they have. Evolution seeks to explain the evolution of different forms of life, not necessarily the origin of life. Christians believe, as the Bible clearly states, that God made the world out of nothing. They, however, disagree on a lot of the particulars.
Christians have Various Views
Various Christians, for example, have various explanations as to the age of the earth. Christians don’t believe that science contradicts the creation accounts. Even while Christians hold various views as to their understanding of the creation accounts. I will say though that this is a topic that many are very dogmatic about. Avowed atheists as well as many evangelicals. Many disagree on the dating of the earth but they’re doubled-down on their dogmatism.
I, however, think a healthy dose of humility is helpful. As well as a willingness to listen to and even learn from and be sharpened by those that come from a different direction.
Again, it’s important that we realize that there are Christians with opinions on both sides of the age of the earth and evolution spectrum. The Bible’s position on the creation of the earth and the humans that inhabit it is not a contradiction. Confusion for some, confidence for many, and consternation for others, yes, but that does not at all prove a contradiction.
Here’s a flawed analogy: A buffet of food doesn’t prove there is no right choice, it just makes finding the right food maybe a little bit harder. I think we can appreciate that there are options and be patient with the person that picks salad.
Here is ‘the buffet’ of choices regarding how humans and the world got to now. I believe there is one choice that is clearly at odds with Christianity, and others that I don’t find as compelling but the presence of choices shouldn’t stop a person from considering Christianity.
Random “Chance”
This is a naturalistic explanation that has no place for God. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga would say this view is incompatible with Christian belief.[2] I agree. I also believe it is false (see “If God created the universe, what created God?“).
Intelligent Design
This view advocates that there is a creator/designer of some sort. “The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straightforward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”[3] This view can support a deist or Christian view of the world. It certainly doesn’t prove Christianity, but it doesn’t necessarily contradict it either.
Evolutionary Creation
This view holds that God used evolution to make the world, or at least life forms, the way they are.
Old-earth Creation
Advocates of this view believe that God created the world over a period of ages or epochs. They believe the account given in Genesis is a faithful poetic explanation of the earth’s origins. The Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) used in the Genesis creation account can mean various things (e.g. a period of 24 hours, a vague amount of time, a year, long age).
Young-earth Creation
This view holds that the earth was created in six literal days six to twelve thousand years ago.
God certainly could have created all things in six literal days, or He could have used a process to bring humans to the state that they are now. “God may have created organic life directly or he may have evolved it from inorganic life by natural processes; nothing we know for sure in either theology or science, God or nature, makes us absolutely certain of either answer.”[4]
There is more than one plausible interpretation of the creation account. So, people interpret the Genesis account in different ways and believe different things regarding how old the earth is. I personally believe we should hold our beliefs regarding the creation of the world with charity.
Christianity does not regulate what one’s belief must be regarding the specific age of the earth. Or how exactly humans got to now. This is a topic Christians can and do disagree on.
Yes, Christians answer differently. But that does not disprove Christianity. Christians believe that there are faithful ways to understand what science says with what Scripture says, even if they sometimes disagree on what those faithful ways are. One Christian author even said, “Whether [God] completed the job in six literal twenty-four hour days or over a longer period does not really matter (Christian opinions differ over how we should interpret Genesis 1). What is important is the fact that God is the creator of all things.”[5]
Notes
[1] See John Lennox’s helpful book, Seven Days that Divide the World.
[2] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, YEAR), 12.
[3] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution.
[4] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 107.
[5] Vaughan Roberts, God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible, 27.
Why do Black Lives & LGBTQ+ Lives Matter?
Why do black lives and LGBTQ+ lives matter? This is an important question because some people have views that don’t support the idea of lives mattering. For example, Charles Darwin, the most famous proponent of evolution titled his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life. And in his book, The Decent of Man, he says,
“The Western nations of Europe… now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization…. The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Does a strict Darwinian view of the world lead to all lives mattering? It does not appear so. That’s why this question is important. Why do black lives and LGTBQ+ lives matter?
If we cut off our objective moral legs, we have no way to stand. If we say morality doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter. We can’t pick and choose. We can’t both say people are the way they are and have the desires they have and it’s fine and say it’s not okay for people to be certain ways and do certain things. That’s the crucial thing we need to consider.
Black lives matter. LGBTQ+ lives matter. White lives matter. Yes, yes, yes, and yes. But why?
That is a super important question and one that sadly isn’t receiving a lot of sustained thought. Why do black lives matter? Why do lives matter at all? Where do we get this concept? Is it true?
Jesus said, black lives matter.[1] Jesus said, LGBTQ+ lives matter. Jesus said, all lives matter.
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-38).
But does Jesus matter? And if He doesn’t on what basis then are we saying all these lives matter? This may seem like a stupid question. We just know all types of lives matter, right? But do we?
The common view that many have is Darwinian evolution, that we came from nothing and we are going to nothing; from purposelessness to purposelessness. Where is meaning, morality, and lives mattering to be found?[2] Is there a basis for human rights?
Also, did the Roman culture, in whose hands Jesus was murdered say, all lives matter?[3] Did Joseph Stalin say all lives matter? Did Friedrich Nietzsche? Did Adolf Hitler? Did Mao Zedong? Is it even possible to say all lives matter or any lives matter when the highest maximum is have it your way and do what’s right for you? Could it be that “just as long as no one gets hurt” has been trampled upon and obliterated by “you can do whatever you want”? 
If God is dead, and we killed him, as Nietzsche said, what follows? Perhaps Nietzsche was right, perhaps that makes all things permissible? Each person doing what is right in their own eyes, whatever that might be. Who is anyone, who or what is God, to restrain? …We are who we are and we want what we want and that’s nobodies business, right?
How or where, then, do we get the concept of lives, any lives, ultimately mattering? The concept of lives mattering would be merely imaginary (a social construct). Perhaps good for America right now but not for all people at all times and places.
We can’t deconstruct everything and still have a basis which to say lives matter or to say that we must love others. We can’t both say we can do whatever we want and you can’t do certain things (like be racist or homophobic).
Darwin, Dawkins, and Moral Duty
Dawkins says “justice is a human construct of great importance in human affairs.”[1] And Dawkins believes that there is probably a Darwinian explanation that explains justice. So, our concept of justice is just a convenient Darwinian happenstance. I believe he says “blessed precious mistake” in his book The God Delusion. Of course, Nietzsche would disagree. Nietzsche in On the Genealogy of Morals doesn’t think it’s blessed or precious.
Also, if justice is merely a human construct then the cannibal clan in Cormac McCarthy’s book The Road are not wrong in keeping people locked up in the cellar in order to slaughter and eat.
in X 